Whether you agree or not, global warming is a reality. And as reported by NASA and daily news, human activities continue to exacerbate the problem.
There are today more emissions than we have seen in all of history. Two thirds of extreme climatic events over the past 20 years are attributable to human activity. The company will collapse at this rate by 2050.
However, not everyone row against the planet: companies and scientists everywhere work hard to combat climate change. In a controversial way (read: between praise and criticism) also the seraphic Bill Gates wants to do its part.
It sounds like a term taken from an apocalyptic film, but it is an approach that, however radical it sounds, could be effective in fighting global warming. In short, it is a technology that replicates the effects of a large volcanic eruption.
Andy Parker, director of the Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative, says: “According to our simulations, reducing the amplitude of heat waves would also have beneficial effects against sea level rise, and against the intensity of tropical storms”.
What is it?
In summary, a series of airplanes flying at high altitude would spray millions of tons of particles around the planet to create large chemical clouds capable of cooling the earth's surface.
Stop. Do not sing victory, dear nerds. And don't say "we knew!", Kind conspiracy theorists: technology is close, but not yet ready.
And the creation of chemical clouds would have two "small" contraindications: first, it could affect meteorology locally. Second, it could make the sky less blue.
The good news is that the process is sustainable! Maybe.
For Stephen Gardiner, author of "The Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change”The general consequences would be far more than small. "They could lead to famines and mass floods, and other hardships even for large populations."
Will a solution with very negative potential side effects be considered sustainable, just because the benefits could outweigh the inconvenience? This is the ethical dilemma to which Gardiner refers.